Discussion of Canada's Role in AFG (merged)

[Gayson]

Just out of curiosity, what areas of the country have a "negative" employment rate, where you see these masses of "labourers" being placed and gainfully employed?

Secondly, what about a professional whose credentials are recognized, will we send him/her to one of these "settlement camps" whether or not he/she can be employed there in their field?

How would you see this immigration plan of yours being policed?  We don't control the movement of citizens or landed immigrants now, so would we then have to do so?  Since not all immigrants are visible minorities, would we have to issue national identity cards (there was lots of support in that thread) to everyone, or just to everyone in a "settlement camp" area and control all movement in and out of those counties?

I'm answering these questions since Micheal has touched on some important points.  I do wish to stay on topic though, if someone would like to continue the conversation of immigration please ask a mod or start a thread.

1)  Saskatchewan is one such province as discussed in the following link:

http://www.clbc.ca/Media_Room/newsletters_archive/news_WT12310301.asp

2) I do believe that an immigrant should be encouraged to persue a job that is in line with their education, especially for a high level profession like engineering, science, medicine etc. . .

However the problem with immigrants not getting these jobs do not lie within our immigration laws but rather within the educational guidelines set by the licensing bodies of their career paths.  For example the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers typically make it very hard for an immigrant to gain a P.Eng without redoing their degree in Canada.

If we want immigrants to be able to fill these spots than the first thing to do is re address the education and experience requirements within the application licensing bodies.

3) I do not think it would be good to send immigrants to "settlement camps" as this is fundamentally the same as immigrants moving within their own respective ethnic communities.  Furthermore having a defined area called something along the lines of a "settlement camp" could likely lead to racial tension between immigrants and the existing populace.  would argue that immigrants should be encouraged to move within existing communties.

4) Along the lines of policing immigrant movement.  I cannot give a definite answer to this question since I am hardly an expert on the topic.  Frankly I lie rather impartial to having national identity cards.  I could see having something along the lines of an landed immigrant work permit to be one method of tracking their whereabouts, also their place of residence could be monitored through tax payments and Statistics Canada as in both systems the persons address is known.

Finally the 2-3 year period could be added to one of the requirements for Canadian citizenship.  I believe this would be a good way to encourage an newly landed family to cooperate.  They complete their 2-3 years living and working within a community, paying taxes, and they become eligible to apply for citizenship.  When they finish their 2-3 years they also are given the freedom to move where they like.

The reason why I believe this system would be good for Canada economically is that communities that NEED people are guaranteed to have these people for at least 2-3 years.  Though everyone would have the right to move away after 2-3 years, I suspect some if not many would stay within their communties because of the ties within the community and with their neighbours that they would make.

Finally, not 100% of all immigrants would be expected to follow this system.  For example if a single member of a family comes to Canada and does his or her 2-3 years, gets a home, a nice job and decides to bring the rest of his immediate family, his family would live with him or her and not be applicable to the 2-3 year rule.

International students would still be able to attend and live at or near the school of their choosing.

Finally, if a family gets placed in a community where they cannot find a job, or they really hate where they live, they can apply for relocation.  The 2-3 years are counted in time from when they arrive to their first community to when they finish at the last community.

Also once a family is given an area to live, they got a job, kids are going to school, they have the right to stay their if they choose during the 2-3 year period, the government cannot force them to relocate.

Anyways, back on topic.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

    Afghanistan was , is , and will continue to be a failed state . Religion , regional politics , economic situation will see to that , to think any differant is to be nieve . Sure you will make inroads  but gains can be quickly erased by events outside your control as those cartoons demonstrated the volitility of the situation . What will happen if a western country [not to be mentioned ] bombs a certain neighbours uranium enrichment facility ?, back to square one . Be omptimistic but dont be surprised  if it all goes to sheet .

"Evil flourishes when good men sit idle".  I always liked that quote.  A'stan isn't going anywhere.  What do you think we should do, force it to be evacuated, put up a fence and use it as an arty range?  There are real people who live there, who through no fault of their own are stuck in a crap storm.  The reason that it is a failed state is that it has been in a constant state of instability for generations.  People need to have a sense of hope before they can start to rebuild.  If we screw off now, those people are done for.  All of the terrorist rats will come back out of the hills, kill all of the people who tried to be community leaders, and turn the place back into a terrorist training ground.  I can't believe someone who has military experience has such a lack of resolve to see a mission through.

 

[Gayson]

    Afghanistan was , is , and will continue to be a failed state . Religion , regional politics , economic situation will see to that , to think any differant is to be nieve . Sure you will make inroads  but gains can be quickly erased by events outside your control as those cartoons demonstrated the volitility of the situation . What will happen if a western country [not to be mentioned ] bombs a certain neighbours uranium enrichment facility ?, back to square one . Be omptimistic but dont be surprised  if it all goes to sheet .

I think it all depends on how far Canada and her allies are willing to go.

Every other conflict in history surrounding Afghanistan has seen the at temp to CONQUER it.

We are not trying to do so, but rather rebuild it and give it to the people who live there.

If your average citizen in Afghanistan WANTS to see their country rebuilt, and DO NOT want the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to have a presence, would you not agree we have the support of the average person there?

If we have the support of the average person, I would argue that this conflict is different than those previous and thus unlike the ones before HAS a chance of success.

 

[ArmyRick]

To the originator of this thread, Pike. R U for real? Live in the Real world, pal.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Pike did a bit of trolling then took off.  She has a website that was posted a few times on other threads then she never came back.  It was just an advertising ploy for a dying hippie site.

 

[Cannonfodder]

   I hate to say it but this thing will never be resolved in our life time , you can make inroads but any stability will be tenuous for many years . Your mission is also tenuous a new government , a botched raid could spell the end of your deployment . Iam not being pessimistic just being realistic about the prospects . If the accident tempo maintains it current level this could be the end of your deployment sooner than later . Commanders will be encouraged to play it safe by there political masters and any high risk high reward missons will be shelved , in effect they will render your effort inert . If you oversuscribe to this mission you really setting yourself up for disappointment .

 

[Pte_Martin]

   I hate to say it but this thing will never be resolved in our life time , you can make inroads but any stability will be tenuous for many years . Your mission is also tenuous a new government , a botched raid could spell the end of your deployment . Iam not being pessimistic just being realistic about the prospects . If the accident tempo maintains it current level this could be the end of your deployment sooner than later . Commanders will be encouraged to play it safe by there political masters and any high risk high reward missons will be shelved , in effect they will render your effort inert . If you oversuscribe to this mission you really setting yourself up for disappointment .

In Bosnia we fixed the problem didn't we? and that was in our Lifetime

 

[Cannonfodder]

In Bosnia we fixed the problem didn't we? and that was in our Lifetime

 


  Apples and oranges my friend differant ball game .

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

After WWI we went home, and left Germany a failed state, in economic and social collapse.  Accordingly, we went back in WWII and left a second generation of Canadian dead atop the same fields.  Choosing to avoid the cost in blood and treasure of rebuilding your fallen foes is the quickest way to assure that you will meet them again when the children and grandchildren arise from their poverty to regain their pride by seeking revenge; long the cheapest and easiest way to motivate a dispirited society.  After WWII we learned this lesson, and the US (so commonly hated by those who fail to actually study the history they quote) spent lavishly to ensure that the former Axis powers were rebuilt, and the generations to come did not learn hate in the squalor of a failed state, but co-operation amongst equals, and now number amongst our allies.  In Afghanistan we have a nation that has been shattered by conquest, guerrilla warfare, regional factionalism, and religious suppression.  Those Afghan's who have tried to rebuild have been repeatedly looted, beaten, and frequently murdered for trying to put the pieces back together.  If we do not stay long enough to weed out the would be warlords and religious fanatics, we will ensure that our departure will again see a regime indistinguishable from the Taliban restored within a year, and renewed terrorism spreading from Afghanistan back towards our shores.  We must ensure that the Afghan people have the time to rebuild, that the next generation has the chance to attempt to live under the rule of law, to see their people governed by the will of the people, not by the top killer of the day.  Why are we in Afghanistan?  We came to topple a terrorist regime that attacked our closest ally and neighbor, we stay to rebuild the country so it will not fall prey to terrorist scum again.

 

[GO!!!]

Cannonfodder,

Although I find your constantly nonsensical posts rather puzzling, what would you have us do?

If we were not in A-Stan, then where? Would it be better for us to stay in Canada and die a slow death of dry rot? A-stan is a theatre in the War on Terror, and as a small power, one in which we can make a contribution, in conjunction with our allies.

You seem to define yourself with a) omnipotent knowledge which you neglect to bestow upon us, and b) opposition to all current policies/deployments/decisions.

Now that we know what you are against, what would you have us DO?

 

[reccecrewman]

Very well said. Those are reasons worth investing time, money & resources into.  

 

[Cannonfodder]

    You want to solve the problem the first thing you have to do is kill the Saudi Arabian wahhabist sects that sponsor those Madrassahs in Pakistan and the rest of the Muslim world .These Maddrassahs teach a Sunni version of Terminator 2 , brain washing facilities that provide foot soldiers for the global jihad . The next step would be to close down the Maddrassahs , this is the source of Islamic extremism , period . The problem is that they are the only place common people can get an education ,so a replacement will have to be offered . It is a start but treating the effects does not cure the disease these are hard bold decisive actions that will at least cut off the supply issues of the problems ,the rest could be eliminated by attrition .

 

[Gayson]

Please provide a source for Maddrassahs.

 

[Redeye]

Please provide a source for Maddrassahs.

Madrassa is the Arabic word for "school".  Specifically in this context it refers to Wahabbist Islamic schools that are basically the indoctrination centres for fundamentalist extremists.  If you look up "Wahhabi" in Wikipedia there's a better explanation than I'll be able to give ever.  Such schools (often sponsored by rich patrons from the Arab world, particularly Saudi Arabia) teach an extremely narrow interpretation of the Quran and this is what often translates into seeing jihad as a violent conflict (which, some Muslim scholars argue, isn't what it's meant to mean at all!)

 

[Gayson]

Cool, thanks for the explaination.

Time to head over to wiki. . .

 

[Redeye]

Cool, thanks for the explaination.

Time to head over to wiki. . .

The 9/11 Commission's report is another good read about the influence of Qutbism and Wahhabism on al Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalism.

 

[a_beautiful_tragedy]

I can't believe you came here to make a statement like that. That is what's known as a troll, and you've just given the dictionary definition. Take a hike.

The Glog and Mog is a Lieberal rag that perpetuates falsehoods and half truths to support their raison de tere of the week, and garner Lieberal grants and funds. Similar to the totally misconstrued falsehoods perpetrated by that other prominent Ottawa rag. When the Lieberals were in, the military could do no wrong, with the deployments they sent us on, lacking equipment, supplies and manpower. Now that the Conservatives are in, the Lieberals are bitching, heaping blame on the mission THEY created and started us on, trying to make the Conservatives the fall guys for the Lieberal folly. Two faced lying pieces of crap. Their own, supposed saviour, P Martin JUNIOR, didn't even have the balls to stick it out and defend his own position. I use the term JUNIOR, because I knew his Dad personally. He was the last honest, caring, constituent friendly MP, the Lieberals had.

With the way the Lieberals have treated and left the Forces, you have a lot of gall linking us to your pathetic site.

I'm going to do you a small favour. You wanted feedback? I'll leave it open........for a bit. We know what your trying to do. To paraphrase "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!!

Game on. Make sure you don't slip out of your Birkenstocks when you run down the hill. Us uncouth, silly army bastards will likely fill them with beer and drink out of them.

ohhhh buddy.....BURN !!

 

[regulator12]

I agree with both sides with respect to if and why we are in Afganistan. We could debate why we are there and if its good or not till we are blue in the face. Bottom line is we have gone there and commited to this war on terror or whatever you want to label it as. We simply can not finish what has been started there. I believe that will cause more problems in the long run. We will never solve the worlds problems, stop terrorism, stop wars, stop genocided whatever, but we can help rebuild a country because they deserve to be rebuilt and deserve a chance to live a life not a western life but there own, and in the process we can try to stop wars, and chase terrorist around the globe because we can as a nation...In the long run which matters more it will be worth it....there are always reasons to wars that benefit countries interests, money, oil,power,drug trade, whatever thats a given, We went to Afganistan, and i believe need to stay to finish the job. Or we could just become neutral and do nothing in this world......

 

[Bograt]

I was home on leave today, watching Breakfast TV on ATV (CTV affiliate in Eastern Canada). The hosts erupted in an editorial rebuke of Canadian Forces in Afghanistan. To which I felt compelled to write a response.

------
I would like to take this opportunity to inform Mr. Baxter and the rest of your BT staff on some of the issues relating to the Canadian Forces deployment in Afghanistan. Mr. Baxter's  impromptu editorial on the CF's role in Afghanistan  has highlighted common misinformation that is held as fact by some. Specifically, Mr Baxter's raises several fallacies.

1. 50 years of peacekeeping tradition is being squandered by this new mission.

2. The CF will ultimately be unsuccessful if history is any predictor on the future (Soviet Union's experience).

3. We are in Afghanistan to "appease" the Americans.

Canadian public has long been told that Canadians are "peacekeepers." This concept apparently communicates a sterile unbiased and neutral guardian. Unfortunately this is a myth that has been espoused by many former governments. The fact is members of the Canadian Forces are Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen and women who's duty is to to protect Canadian Sovereignty and promote our interest abroad. Peacekeeping is a job that we are occasionally asked to do. It is not a Canadian phenomenon, in fact we rank 30th in the world behind countries like Bangladesh when it comes to participation in Blue Helmet roles. It is also important to understand that peacekeeping is a long commitment. We have been in Cyprus for over 40 years.

Unfortunately, traditional peacekeeping is uncommon in the post cold war reality. No longer are the days when blue helmets positioned themselves in between to obliging parties. One only needs to look at the Canadian experience in the former Yugoslavia. Canadians engaged and killed  combatants under the auspices of NATO to restore order.  There wasn't any "moral outrage" when 2PPCLI engaged and killed Croatian special forces who were responsible for war crimes against Serbs. We were involved in air strikes that forced unwilling parties to the peace table. Peacemaking is the new reality.

The second issue is the myth that our actions will be unsuccessful due to the experience of history. It is important to understand that Canada is being asked to contribute by an elected government that comprises the interests of Afghan people who want nothing more of war. Who want to be able to raise their families, send their kids to school, and make a living without risk of beheading, public hanging, and other forms of retribution. To equate the current situation to that which happened in the past 30 years is irresponsible and ignorant.

Finally, the argument that we are there to appease the Americans. First, the United States are our closest ally to which we share many common priorities. However, Canada is a sovereign nation and seeks out its own foreign policy that it views follows the Canadian identity. Canada is a member of NATO, and with that we have certain responsibilities. After September 11th 2001, NATO for the first time was called upon to enact its reason d'etre- collective self defence. An attack on one country is an attack on all. Canada is in Afghanistan with other NATO countries and the international community. Over 20 countries comprise the multinational effort to bring the war devastated country back to the world stage. If the world community turns its back on this country, expect more death and destruction here and abroad. To think otherwise is reminiscent of Chamberlain's folly with Hitler, "Peace in our time". This argument only highlights one's biases against the US and not the reality.

I hope that your BT hosts become informed on the issue. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are home to many serving CF members and their families. To communicate such ignorant positions is not only a blemish on their "journalistic integrity" but it is an insult to all those families.

Regards,

2Lt Bograt

edited typo in preamble.

 

[George Wallace]

Bagrat

Very well written letter.  Please keep us informed as to what response back you may receive, if any.